A member of

Newsfeed

The apparent U-turn by the Pentagon over DU use by aircraft in Operation Inherent Resolve has been cautiously welcomed by campaigners, but is it a sign of a wider policy shift? Is the threshold of acceptability for the use of DU in operations rising in response to international pressure over the controversial munitions and what part has the A-10 played in this?

The Pentagon has announced that depleted uranium (DU) munitions have not, and will not, be used by US aircraft in the conflict against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The policy U-turn contrasts with statements made over previous months, where Pentagon officials claimed that DU would be used if needed; the decision reflects a growing stigmatisation of the controversial weapons.

The news that US A-10 gunships are now also active in Syria in operations against Islamic State has coincided with the emergence of reports that Syrian civilians fear the long-term health impact of the Coalition’s airstrikes.

On October 25th the Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU) will be holding an open, public meeting to launch their latest report: Managing Acceptability: UK policy on depleted uranium weapons. The report that analyses the politics of DU from its development in the 1960’s through to its use over the last two decades. It argues that the MoD has managed the acceptability of a weapon they knew to be politically unacceptable from the start, a trend they continue to this day.

This has raised key questions about the accountability of the MoD. Recent events such as the failure to carry out a legal review of the UK’s only DU round; as required by the Geneva Conventions, and then their failure to reveal the reviews findings, also raise questions about the transparency of one of the most expensive government departments.

With the MoD having been accused of moral ambivalence and a cultural resistance to human rights, and with controversial new technologies such as armed drones and autonomous robots emerging, it is crucial that the UK’s current approach to military necessity versus humanitarian harm is more closely scrutinised by civil society and parliamentarians.

Does the MoD use justification of ‘defence’ to avoid accountability? What mechanisms are there to ensure the MoD uphold international humanitarian law?

Our panel of four speakers will discuss these issues and provide an insight into their own experiences in the field. Following on from the talks there will be a 45 minute Q&A session with the panel.

Speakers:

Aneaka Kellay from the Campaign Against Depleted Uranium

Reverend Nicholas Mercer former MoD Senior Legal advisor to the Army who went on to win Human Rights Lawyer of the year

Andrew Feinstein former South African politician and author of The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade